Don Vicente Sotto’s case against the International
Eucharistic Congress Postage Stamps (Part 1)
The Director of Posts, Juan Ruiz, on May 1936 announced in the dailies of Manila that he would order the issues of postage stamps commemorating the celebration in the City of Manila of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress organized by the Roman Catholic Church.
Bishop Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, in the fulfillment of what he considers to be his civic duty, requested his lawyer, Vicente Yap Sotto to denounce the matter to the President of the Philippines. In spite of such protest, the Director of Posts publicly announced having sent to the United States the designs of the postage stamps for printing.
Vicente Sotto was a supporter of the Philippine Independent Church and of its founder, Gregorio Aglipay (the religion is associated with the latter as it is likewise called the Aglipayan Church). It was Sotto who helped in the construction of its church in Cebu, which came from the earnings of the first Cebuano stage play “Ang Gugma sa Yutang Natawhan,” shown on January 1, 1902. The church along Mabini Street in the Parian District, Cebu City, was built in 1903.
The Philippine Republic at that time was young as President Quezon was elected on September 16, 1935, it was barely a year old when the IEC commemorative stamps became a controversy.
Bishop Aglipay through his counsel, Don Vicente Sotto (he and his elder brother, Filemon, were baptized Roman Catholics at the Cebu Metropolitan Cathedral) went to the Supreme Court and sought for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to prevent the Director of Posts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorating the congress.
The issue raised was that the action of the Director of Posts was violative of the provisions of Section 23, subsection 3, Article VI of the Constitution of the Philippines, which provides as follows:
“No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian, institution, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal institution, orphanage, or leprosarium.” (To be continued)
- Latest
